Featured in
Architecture & Design

Mini-talks: The Machine Intelligence Landscape: A Venture Capital Perspective by David Beyer. The future of global, trustless transactions on the largest graph: blockchain by Olaf Carlson-Wee. Algorithms for Anti-Money Laundering by Richard Minerich.

Featured in
Process & Practices

In-App Subscriptions Made Easy

There are various types of subscriptions: recurring, non-recurring, free-trial periods, various billing cycles and any possible billing variation one can imagine. But with lack of information online, you might discover that mobile subscriptions behave differently from what you expected. This article will make your life somewhat easier when addressing an in-app subscriptions implementation.

Featured in
Operations & Infrastructure

Mini-talks: The Machine Intelligence Landscape: A Venture Capital Perspective by David Beyer. The future of global, trustless transactions on the largest graph: blockchain by Olaf Carlson-Wee. Algorithms for Anti-Money Laundering by Richard Minerich.

Featured in
Enterprise Architecture

Mini-talks: The Machine Intelligence Landscape: A Venture Capital Perspective by David Beyer. The future of global, trustless transactions on the largest graph: blockchain by Olaf Carlson-Wee. Algorithms for Anti-Money Laundering by Richard Minerich.

Oracle Proposes Hudson Move to Eclipse Foundation

Oracle proposed today that the Hudson project be transferred to the Eclipse Foundation, complete with code re-licensing under the Eclipse Public License as well as the domain and controversial trademark.

Oracle will continue to lead the project, along with Sonatype who have been instrumental in migrating the Hudson plugin system towards a JSR 330/Dependency Injection style of representation. However, the move to the Eclipse Foundation has also interested others, such as VMware and Tasktop, who have been invited to participate as committers on the project. With the top-level Mylyn project providing application lifecycle management from within Eclipse (which already includes a Hudson/Jenkins connector), and the recent move of Tycho (which was released under the org.eclipse namespace this week), the Eclipse Foundation's story on interoperable build and management tools makes it a natural place to host the Hudson builds.

It is also hoped that the migration of Hudson to be an open-source managed project may help with the split between Jenkins and Hudson, which primarily focussed around the issues associated with the trademark and governance model. Since the Eclipse Foundation will now own the trademark, and the governance model is well known and understood, hopefully this can act as a point of co-operation between the Hudson and Jenkins products.

The Eclipse Foundation pays a significant amount of attention to IP cleanliness, so the creation of a project proposal is just the start of a long journey. In addition, the re-licensing of the existing codebase to move to the Eclipse Public License will be fine for code contributed via Eclipse company members (Sonatype, Oracle) but any outside additions to the core may need closer examination before the code can come through.

Hudson will continue to encourage the plugins be available via Maven Central, although this isn't a prerequisite for creating and hosting a Hudson plugin. Many plugins are compatible with both the Hudson and Jenkins projects; hopefully, with a new plugin model being available for both, the move to Eclipse will help draw a line under the Hudson/Jenkins debate and a true open-source governance model will be possible under the Eclipse Foundation.

InfoQ asked Jason van Zyl what he thinks this means for the Hudson/Jenkins community:

I believe that Hudson moving to Eclipse is the best possible outcome for the community. The Eclipse Foundation is a great place for open source projects, arguably the best, and I think the Hudson project is going to find a lot of support at Eclipse. Whatever baggage there has been, I think Eclipse provides a level playing field for all interested parties and this move provides a great opportunity for the Hudson and Jenkins projects to come together under one project again.

In our view, Hudson is coming to Eclipse for all the right reasons. The Eclipse community is itself a big user of Hudson, and we all look forward to the growth in momentum, innovation and predictability that will result from this move. With the addition of the Eclipse community processes for development, release and intellectual property management, we’re confident that the Hudson community and ecosystem will be thrilled with Hudson as an Eclipse project.

This proposal is in the Project Proposal Phase (as defined in the Eclipse Development Process) and is written to declare its intent and scope. We solicit additional participation and input from the Eclipse community. Please send all feedback to the Eclipse Proposals Forum.

Oracle remains fully committed to the Hudson project and will continue to invest in the project both in terms of leading the project at Eclipse and continuing to staff full-time employees in the areas of development, QA, documentation and product management.

Does Oracle still view Hudson important for their customers?

Absolutely. As application software development evolves to become ever more complex, the core tasks of managing the development processes around it can quickly exceed the capacity of manual systems. We believe that a continuous integration solution such as Hudson is key to all enterprise development efforts, including, but not restricted to, those undertaken by Oracle itself and its customer base.

Demonstrating its commitment to the developer and open source communities, Oracle today announced that it has submitted a proposal to the Eclipse Foundation to create a Hudson project in Eclipse and contribute the Hudson core code to that project.

As part of the process, Oracle will transfer the Hudson trademark and the Hudson-ci.org domain name to the Eclipse Foundation.

Under the new proposal, Oracle will be the project lead with Sonatype, Tasktop, and VMware as initial contributors. Other companies are also listed as project supporters.

To help ensure that the proposal is in the best interests of the developer and open source communities, Oracle will solicit feedback from the Hudson community to make sure its opinions are heard before any proposal is finalized.

Hudson is a industry-leading open source “continuous integration” (CI) server that increases productivity by coordinating and monitoring executions of repeated jobs, making it easier for developers to integrate changes to the project and for users to obtain a fresh build.

While there may be many questions about this move, the proposal phase of the Eclipse Development Process makes the path forward clear. The next stage is soliciting input from the community-at-large. As I see Eclipse as a great home for this technology, I have agreed to mentor the project and look forward to the community discussions around this proposal and the increasingly central role of continuous integration in the ALM stack.

We were very interested in having the trademark moved under the custody of a neutral 3rd party, but they were very clear that that’s not acceptable to them. And it also disappoints me that they decided not to reach out to the Jenkins community about this move, when we’ve been conducting our governance meeting all open out there for anyone to join. But I guess they are never really interested in working with us.

It should be noted that Ted Farrell, chief architect and senior vice president, Tools and Middleware at Oracle, has disputed this account, saying "...it was talked about in detail in the discussions that Andrew, Sacha and I had off-thread. I have the emails stating our proposal, which was both Eclipse or an Eclipse-like process was too heavyweight."

I really hope this will help merge Jenkins and Hudson back to a single open source project, I think with the efforts of Cloudbees and Sonatype Hudson/Jenkins can once again rule the CI server world. It would certainly stop me looking at Bamboo :-)

How is this Oracle's fault. Sun should have clarified things when android came out to begin with. If you want to blame someone, blame Sun management. Google should do the right thing and properly license Java. then everyone can move on.

Resorting to legal battles is exactly what I mean. Oracle would rather tear the Java community apart (and send them running to other platforms) than allow a rival to innovate on the platform. This isn't just about Google, this is about the aggressive actions Oracle has taken against the Java community (look at all the problems the Apache Foundation has had). And why would I blame Sun? Oracle owns Sun now and could make this go away if they desired.

"will continue to invest in the project both in terms of leading the project at Eclipse and continuing to staff full-time employees in the areas of development, QA, documentation and product management."

So nothing much has changed then except that are using the eclipse foundation as a white wash? So if the jenkins people came back their treatment would be different somehow?

Face it. Oracle is not Sun, does not want to be and never will be. They have proven this with so many very public examples in such a short amount of time that calling it a "conspiracy" insults us and makes you out to be a fool.

But since you work for Oracle I assume it is more Kool(aid) than Fool which is more forgivable I guess.

> So nothing much has changed then except that are using the eclipse foundation as a white wash?

White wash? Trying to cover up the fact that Oracle is investing "full-time employees in the areas of development, QA, documentation and product management"? Trying to hide the fact that Oracle just donated the trademark and IP to an independent OSS organization? (Just like the community was asking for!!!)

Seriously, on the evil scale, I think Oracle can probably do way better than this ;-)

This just goes to prove that some people will find something to complain about in anything. You really should be ashamed.

Like no problem with Hudson ever occurred? Like developers of Hudson had no problem with infrastructure without proper warning? Like everything was clearly communicated early enough? I don't know, I'm just a remote observer, but this really doesn't seem so. If there were no Jenkins/Hudson split then maybe it's OK, but now this positive news (and positive it is) seems to me like (too little?) too late.

Also the lawsuit vs Google will never make you any better in the eyes of community, so hope it will be worth it. I hope it will not.

I don't work for Oracle. Having said that, Oracle knows how to make money and do it well. All this drama is just silly in my mind. All of this non-sense about google vs oracle is silly. Google has the money to license Java, but they chose not to. Sun ignored it when they should have made some kind of formal agreement. If you just paid lots of money for Sun, what would you do?

The whole TCK is more complicated than my insight can understand. From what I know though, Sun's TCK policy wasn't nicely in line with their own license or promises or whatever. And talking about what I would do... well, not this. ;-) But then, I don't run Oracle. This whole thing is indeed silly, but it's not only community's fault. It's not like Oracle finally makes some move and community is going to be groovy about it. The way Sun wasted their commercial potential, the way they had not clear strategy (funny enough, many people around me said 10 yeras back that Sun would go down in 5 years, so Sun was actually successfull :-)), doesn't change anything on the fact that I liked the company, their ideas, and so on.

I'm not so keen on Oracle, but I have to live with it, it does many things right... but how Sun wasted their commercial potential so does Oracle with its community potential. Many things are actually about feelings and many ppl feel that way, whether it's conspiracy or not (it's not for me for example). But then again, I don't care about Oracle's money, Oracle does, and if sueing Google is the best thing to do (for them), whatever. Just no wonder we have feelings about it. :-) Right now Google runs many interesting projects and I care for them more than for Oracle.

I am not ashamed and it would be highly inappropriate for me to feel that way. I don't blame Oracle for acting in a selfish and open source community destroying manner. I know oracle products, how they are developed and the quality of them and how they are sold etc. (even with the flag ship DB product) So I am not surprised or even outraged that they acted this way.

This does not constitute a CHANGE in behavior for them.

However this IS a change for the java community (incl. me) and I don't have to like it. I don't have to lie about it or delude myself it is anything other than it is: a sloppy attempt at a corporate takeover of the amazing java community. It has fail and will continue to, but the damage it is doing along the way is unforgivable.

eclipse should backoff from sheltering hudson and support jenkins
by
Pradeep Jindal

well, an open source project belongs to the community and community has moved the porject to jenkins so hudson is a dead piece of code.

if eclipse has any respect and human feeling to open source community and right ownership justice then when oracle proposed them to offer hudson they shoud have refused and rather have asked first to jenkins community to join eclipse.

here i see first culprit was oracle and now second culprit is eclipse who is joining now to oracle to kill jenkins by biasing hudson.

Re: eclipse should backoff from sheltering hudson and support jenkins
by
Cameron Purdy

> .. hudson is a dead piece of code.> if eclipse has any respect and human feeling to open source community> and right ownership justice then when oracle proposed them to offer> hudson they shoud have refused and rather have asked first to jenkins> community to join eclipse.> here i see first culprit was oracle and now second culprit is eclipse> who is joining now to oracle to kill jenkins by biasing hudson.> backoff eclipse

OK, after a post like this, I'm going to have to completely re-evaluate my position. Normally, when I read something like this, I assume two things: (1) that I am rational and sane and that I am reading something that obviously does not hold together in a rational sense, and (2) that some other sane person will have had the courage to point out that the post that I'm reading is paranoid and/or delusional. Since that has not happened, I am going to have to assume that all of my points of reference are invalid.

Just to help me clue in on the source of this vitriol, which of the following are bad things:

1) Oracle proposed today that the Hudson project be transferred to the Eclipse Foundation2) To accomplish this, Oracle is re-licensing the code under the Eclipse Public License3) Oracle is turning over ownership of the Hudson domain to the Eclipse Foundation4) Oracle is turning over ownership of the Hudson trademark to the Eclipse Foundation

Or is there something deeply troubling that I'm missing? Because I would have thought that these were good things, and I'm a little bit surprised by the rabid response to Oracle doing what seems to be the "right thing".

Yeah, that evil Intuit. First they make tax returns easy. Now they want to control Hudson through Eclipse. There's obviously money in this for Intuit. (Am I the only one that thinks this is crazy?)

As you said somewhere else:

> This is not an open source drama. It is about companies, or organizations> (acting for companies) trying to gain ownership of something which is not> theirs.

This is a very good point. Perhaps you could start by being clear on the ownership: What company would you say that Hudson belonged to? What company funded and started the project? What company paid to have it developed?

It certainly wasn't that certain VC-backed company that tried to take control of Hudson, was it? And when their attempt to take control of Hudson failed, they started the campaign of FUD that you are now continuing on their behalf.

It is a strange world indeed when the company that funded the creation and development of Hudson is attacked first for preventing the project's hijacking by another company (one that hired the original developer of Hudson, specifically for the purpose of building a business around Hudson), and then attacked again for donating the Hudson IP -- including the code and the trademark -- to a trusted open source group.

I couldn't have said it better than this:

The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary

Re: eclipse should backoff from sheltering hudson and support jenkins
by
Richard Clayton

Cameron,

I think your position at Oracle leaves you blinded to the fact that the community doesn't trust Oracle, even when it attempts to do something good. Oracle's become Microsoft (circa 2000); like Microsoft, Oracle will have to do a lot more for the community before the open source community lets its guard down. Pestering every poster who has said something negative about Oracle is certainly not helping the company's case.

You didn't answer my questions -- not that you must answer them, but more that I would have helped me understand your position.

> What I find strange is that the company that should be there is not. CloudBees.> And I have to wonder why?

I assume they're not there because they don't want to be. I guess you'd have to ask them why. From their hostile reaction to this announcement, it would appear that Hudson becoming part of Eclipse isn't good news for them.

Re: eclipse should backoff from sheltering hudson and support jenkins
by
Cameron Purdy

Richard -

> I think your position at Oracle leaves you blinded to the fact> that the community doesn't trust Oracle, even when it attempts> to do something good.

I do perceive the lack of trust, and I've personally witnessed several of the events (like the Apache issue with JDK7) that led to that lack of trust. I'm just surprised that when something so simple and straightforward happens like this, that there's such a negative backlash. Oracle has donated other projects to Eclipse over the years, like Toplink (now the RI for the JPA standard), and that didn't cause a brouhaha.

> Oracle's become Microsoft (circa 2000)

... that's not going to help recruiting.

> Pestering every poster who has said something negative about Oracle> is certainly not helping the company's case.

And allowing such ridiculous group-think (actively promulgated by a commercial entity with an agenda) to go unquestioned is irresponsible.

Re: eclipse should backoff from sheltering hudson and support jenkins
by
Mr Magoo

This cannot be group-think because we are not talking directly to each other and influencing our opinions and all the other things that cause group think. We have all come here to voice the opinions we have formed as independently of each other as they can be. I suggest you do more research on it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

What is amusing is that because they are all similar you assign the derogatory label of "group think" and consider our position weakened. Obviously just mindless sheep following each other. How wrong could you be?? You position is ridiculous.

And if some people are angry and over reacting to certain aspects of all this then that is just to be expected and, to be frank, deserved. The public don't react the way you want them to and are not 100% rational all the time. They also don't get to sit around Oracle's boardroom table so don't know what EXACTLY Oracle have planned and are planning now.Oracle have generated negative feelings and this has been well justified. You don't now get to control how people feel about it or how negative emotions spin off from it. Sorry, that is just the way it is.

However there is a danger that group think is exactly what is happening at Oracle but of course I do not work there. I am pretty sure you have all been sat round a table and had things "explained" to you though in the corp-speak way that these things are - that is just standard procedure.In fact I would go as far to say that the Oracle management thinking that this was EVER going to go down any other way if they pulled the stunts they did was a classic result of a group think environment.

But good work tarnishing your brand and Java's with it. Masterfully done...

Re: eclipse should backoff from sheltering hudson and support jenkins
by
Cameron Purdy

I hate to be redundant, but:

Just to help me clue in on the source of this vitriol, which of the following are bad things:

1) Oracle proposed today that the Hudson project be transferred to the Eclipse Foundation2) To accomplish this, Oracle is re-licensing the code under the Eclipse Public License3) Oracle is turning over ownership of the Hudson domain to the Eclipse Foundation4) Oracle is turning over ownership of the Hudson trademark to the Eclipse Foundation

Or is there something deeply troubling that I'm missing? Because I would have thought that these were good things, and I'm a little bit surprised by the rabid response to Oracle doing what seems to be the "right thing".

Re: eclipse should backoff from sheltering hudson and support jenkins
by
Mr Magoo

You are missing it on purposed.So let me rewrite that somewhat myopic history of what happened:0.1) Sun develops Hudson0.2) Oracle buys Sun and starts to throw its weight around on various OS projects.0.3) At some stage they try to "take over" the Hudson project from the main contributor and threaten legal action over the trademark.0.4) Jenkins team discuss turning trademark over to 3rd party and other options which Oracle refuses.0.5) Jenkins was born and now the community is split.0.6) Jenkins does very well and Oracle most likely realizes the capacity to further monetize Hudson is a non-starter now. 1) Oracle proposed today that the Hudson project be transferred to the Eclipse Foundation2) To accomplish this, Oracle is re-licensing the code under the Eclipse Public License3) Oracle is turning over ownership of the Hudson domain to the Eclipse Foundation4) Oracle is turning over ownership of the Hudson trademark to the Eclipse Foundation5) Oracle does reach out to the Jenkins community.6) Oracle does not turn over "leadership" of the project.

So yeah. Not impressed. Not feeling a lot of love for Oracle. Not really sure how you could have followed this story and see Oracle in a good light. Jenkins on the other hand has won a victory of sorts but it remains to be seen what "leading the project at Eclipse" actually means.

But feel free not to take off those rosey glasses and keep waving that flag. I mean you used you real name and work there so I honestly understand.

Re: eclipse should backoff from sheltering hudson and support jenkins
by
peter lin

So going by that description, just about every company including Sun should get "no love". Sun did similar things before they were bought out, so did you "have love" for Sun? I'm all for demanding ethical behavior from large corporations, but it really isn't a person. Even if the US government "considers" a corporation a person, it isn't. Expecting a corporation to behave like a saint is just silly in my mind. No company in the fortune 500 would pass the test, which is good. Loving a corporation doesn't make any sense in my mind. Putting any kind of "faith" in a corporation is bound to make you feel really sad and disappointed.

Re: eclipse should backoff from sheltering hudson and support jenkins
by
Richard Clayton

There's a business case for doing the right thing. Outside of the JVM, I refuse to use any Oracle product on pure principal. In many cases you're right; I don't love big oil companies, but I buy gas. The difference is the availability of choice in the market. The JVM is at a critical point and Oracle controls its destiny. If Oracle doesn't nurture the Java Community, developers are going to flee to Python, Ruby, .NET, etc. There are better enterprise languages than Java on the market today and the only thing tieing us to the language is the community.

Re: eclipse should backoff from sheltering hudson and support jenkins
by
Mike Keith

0.1) Sun develops Hudson0.2) Oracle buys Sun and starts to throw its weight around on various OS projects.0.3) At some stage they try to "take over" the Hudson project from the main contributor and threaten legal action over the trademark.

Your logic is very strange indeed (and by strange I mean faulty). I don't know how you got to 0.3 from 0.1 and 0.2, but I suspect it just might have something to do with bias.

So yeah. Not impressed. Not feeling a lot of love for Oracle. Not really sure how you could have followed this story and see Oracle in a good light.

People read what they want to read. Oracle haters are going to say that Oracle tried to shaft everybody and pro-Oracle folks and employees (I'm one) are going to say that Jenkins tried to steal the IP and make it theirs. It just goes to show that someone with a non-objective opinion is going to make events fit in with what they want to think. Doesn't matter what actually happened. If I were looking for the truth I would be more apt to listen to an objective third party like Peter Lin, or someone who from his history sees things from a distance and doesn't have a personal axe to grind.

But feel free not to take off those rosey glasses and keep waving that flag. I mean you used you real name and work there so I honestly understand.

Using your real name is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition to even be a candidate of trust. You should try it! :-)

Re: eclipse should backoff from sheltering hudson and support jenkins
by
Mr Magoo

Hi Mike Keith from Oracle.

Thanks for joining in. Again, I understand why you say what you are saying but I just don't agree.

You first mistake is that I was using logic to come up with the sequence of events. If you look at the commentary on this in the news (and I have) you will find that this is the way it is reported across the board. I am not biased. I have worked with Hudson and Oracle DB extensively in the past. In fact on my last project I wished we were using Oracle DB instead of Postgres. Never had anything against Oracle before. Did not immediately start hating on Oracle when they bought Sun.In fact I waited to see what their plans were because I concluded Oracle bought Sun for a 'reason' and it was just a question of what that might be.

Again, if you are going to bandy about "bias" as a way to dismiss the public's opinion then you will have to dismiss your own. You work for oracle (unless this is a strange coincidence of names) and are here under your real name commenting on them. By the way, that is why I post anon.

In my case I was not always happy with every decision Sun made and did not "pre-hate" the Oracle takeover. However I am very unhappy with how Oracle have been acting with the community lately. I think they are very foolish and libreoffice and jenkins are perfect examples of why they are being very foolish about all this."Java" was no longer just about Sun it was about the Java community - its standards bodies, its contributors and the companies like Spring Source that have actively fostered communities, good will, fairies and bunnies in the way they work.

What Oracle is doing is trampling all over the top of that. Fortunately it appears that the community is very resilient to this. However Richard hit the nail on the head as to how damaging this could end up being for them if they were continue this route. (and it appears that they are not since Jenkins is doing FAAAR more successfully than Hudson based on what I have read about where supporters, plugin projects, integration etc has moved to.)

What I find amusing is you desperately attach your argument to the only non-Oracle employee here that is not actively against you. And a summary of his opinion is: "Oracle is a corporation, corporations are not good, so why are you expecting Oracle to be."

Very amusing and very telling to be honest.

I don't want to dislike Oracle. I wanted Oracle to inject a new energy and positive drive and cash into java. The only way to do this was with the community as this is what java is nowadays. They simply have not done this and are in danger of going the other way.

But feel 'free' to have your own opinion and I will be free to have mine without fear of reprisal. Such is the wonder of the anonymous Internet.

Re: eclipse should backoff from sheltering hudson and support jenkins
by
Stuart McCulloch

Again, if you are going to bandy about "bias" as a way to dismiss the public's opinion then you will have to dismiss your own. You work for oracle (unless this is a strange coincidence of names) and are here under your real name commenting on them. By the way, that is why I post anon.

Errr... Mike mentioned he was an Oracle employee in his original message (and in the spirit of openness I work for Sonatype)

"Mr. Magoo" we have a real name policy at InfoQ, please edit your preferences and provide your real name so as to improve the quality and seriousness of the comments here at InfoQ. If you continue posting under an alias, your posts may be deleted.